Effect of Health-Related Uncertainty and Natural Variability on Health Impacts and Cobenefits of Climate Policy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Climate policy can mitigate health risks attributed to intensifying air pollution under climate change. However, few studies quantify risks of illness and death, examine their contribution to climate policy benefits, or assess their robustness in light of natural climate variability. We employ an integrated modeling framework of the economy, climate, air quality, and human health to quantify the effect of natural variability on U.S. air pollution impacts under future climate and two global policies (2 and 2.5 °C stabilization scenarios) using 150 year ensemble simulations for each scenario in 2050 and 2100. Climate change yields annual premature deaths related to fine particulate matter and ozone (95CI: 25 000-120 000), heart attacks (900-9400), and lost work days (3.6M-4.9M) in 2100. It raises air pollution health risks by 20%, while policies avert these outcomes by 40-50% in 2050 and 70-88% in 2100. Natural variability introduces "climate noise", yielding some annual estimates with negative cobenefits, and others that reach 100% of annual policy costs. This "noise" is three times the magnitude of uncertainty (95CI) in health and economic responses in 2050. Averaging five annual simulations reduces this factor to two, which is still substantially larger than health-related uncertainty. This study quantifies the potential for inaccuracy in climate impacts projected using too few annual simulations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".